Characteristics of the survey participants:
The demographic characteristics of the 5,000 survey participants are presented in Table 1. The number of male and female participants was almost equal. About 30% of the participants were from the age group 10 to 19 years, 23% were between 20 and 29 years old, 23% were between 30 and 39 years old, 15% were between 40 and 49 years old, and 9% were between 50 and 59 years old. Almost half of the participants (49%) did not receive formal education, while about 28% had completed primary level education, 17% had completed secondary level education, and only 6% had completed post-secondary or above level of education. The majority of the participants (84%) lived in rural areas, while the rest (16%) lived in urban areas at the time of survey data collection. More than one-third (37%) of the survey participants were married, 54% were unmarried, and the left over 9% of the participants were separated, divorced, or widowed. Common disability types of the participants include physical disability (40%), speech disability (9%), visual disability (12%), intellectual disability (12%), and individuals with multiple types of disabilities (15%).
Table 1
Weighted characteristics of the 5,000 quantitative study participants
Background characteristics | Percentage (%) | Frequency (n) |
Gender | Female | 49.1 | 2,455 |
| Male | 50.9 | 2,545 |
Age | 10-19 | 29.8 | 1,490 |
| 20-29 | 22.9 | 1,145 |
| 30-39 | 23.1 | 1,155 |
| 40-49 | 14.9 | 745 |
| 50-59 | 9.2 | 460 |
Access to formal education | Had access | 51.5 | 2,575 |
| No access | 48.5 | 2,425 |
Education | No formal education | 48.5 | 2,425 |
| Primary education | 28.4 | 1,420 |
| Secondary education | 17.4 | 870 |
| Post-secondary education | 5.7 | 285 |
Residence | Urban | 16.3 | 815 |
| Rural | 83.7 | 4,185 |
Household wealth quintile | Poorest | 20.0 | 1,000 |
| Poorer | 20.1 | 1,005 |
| Middle class | 19.9 | 995 |
| Wealthy | 20.1 | 1,005 |
| Wealthiest | 20.0 | 1,000 |
Marriage | Married | 37.4 | 1,870 |
| Unmarried | 54.1 | 2,705 |
| Separated | 2.6 | 130 |
| Divorced | 4.6 | 230 |
| Widowed | 1.4 | 70 |
Type of disability | Physical disability | 40.2 | 2,010 |
| Hearing disability | 2.1 | 105 |
| Speech disability | 9.0 | 450 |
| Visual disability | 11.6 | 580 |
| Intellectual disability | 12.0 | 600 |
| Autism or autism spectrum disorders | 2.6 | 130 |
| Cerebral palsy | 4.1 | 205 |
| Multiple disability | 14.6 | 730 |
| Down syndrome | 0.5 | 25 |
| Mental illness leading to disability | 2.5 | 125 |
| Deaf-blindness | 0.3 | 15 |
| Other disability | 0.5 | 25 |
Table 2 shows the characteristics of the 15 participants interviewed in the qualitative phase of the study. Of the 15 qualitative participants, 8 were male and 7 were female. Three of them were from the age group 20 to 29 years, 7 were from the age group 30 to 39 years, 2 were from the age group 40 to 49 years, and 3 were from the age group 50 to 59 years. Four of them did not receive any formal education, 6 completed primary level education, 4 completed secondary level education, and only one completed post-secondary level education. The majority (12 out of 15) of qualitative participants were residents of rural areas. All of them were married, though 2 were divorced and 1 was separated at the time of qualitative data collection. Nine of them had physical disability, 3 had visual disability, one had hearing impairment, one had speech impairment, and one had cerebral palsy.
Table 2
Characteristics of the 15 qualitative study participants
Background characteristics | Number |
Gender | Female | 7 |
| Male | 8 |
Age | 10-19 | 0 |
| 20-29 | 3 |
| 30-39 | 7 |
| 40-49 | 2 |
| 50-59 | 3 |
Access to formal education | Had access | 11 |
| No access | 4 |
Education | No formal education | 4 |
| Primary education | 6 |
| Secondary education | 4 |
| Post-secondary education | 1 |
Residence | Urban | 3 |
| Rural | 12 |
Household wealth quintile | Poorest | 6 |
| Poorer | 7 |
| Middle class | 1 |
| Wealthy | 1 |
| Wealthiest | 0 |
Marriage | Married | 12 |
| Separated | 1 |
| Divorced | 2 |
Type of disability | Physical disability | 9 |
| Hearing disability | 1 |
| Speech disability | 1 |
| Visual disability | 3 |
| Cerebral palsy | 1 |
Legend: All survey participants were characterized as having no formal education, primary education, secondary education, or post-secondary education. For all 590 mothers with disabilities surveyed, the proportion using antenatal care, delivery care, and postnatal care is reported for each level of education. For all 1,954 persons with disabilities (1,239 male and 715 female) who responded to the survey’s family planning method questions, the proportion using family planning is reported for each level of education. |
Pregnancy Service Use
Antenatal care service utilization
Antenatal care utilization data was collected from all 590 female survey participants who had been pregnant during their lifetime. The proportion of female participants who utilized antenatal care services during pregnancy is 28.9% for non-formally educated mothers, 38.6% for mothers with primary education, 59.5% for mothers with secondary education, and 84.5% for mothers with post-secondary education (Figure 1). The chi-squared test between education level and antenatal care use is statistically significant, with P < 0.001.
Univariate logistic regression results examining the effect of education on antenatal care use is presented in Table 3. The findings suggest that the odds of using antenatal care for a disabled woman with primary education is 1.7 times the odds of using antenatal care for a disabled woman with no formal education (OR = 1.70; 95% CI: 1.12, 2.56). For a disabled woman with secondary and post-secondary education, their odds of using antenatal care is 3.4 times (OR = 3.44; 95% CI: 2.19, 5.39) and 13.0 times (OR = 13.02; 95% CI: 4.77, 35.53) higher than the odds of a non-formally educated woman, respectively (Table 3).
Table 3
Logistic regression models for education on antenatal, delivery, and postnatal care utilization
| | Antenatal Care | | | Delivery Care | | | Postnatal Care | | |
| | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 2 |
| | Odds Ratio | Odds Ratio | Odds Ratio | Odds Ratio | Odds Ratio | Odds Ratio |
Education | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Primary education (vs. No formal education) | 1.695 | (1.124-2.556) | 1.268 | (0.816-1.969) | 1.273 | (0.848-1.913) | 1.047 | (0.679-1.614) | 1.478 | (0.881-2.477) | 1.045 | (0.597-1.828) |
| Secondary education (vs. No formal education) | 3.439 | (2.193-5.392) | 1.979 | (1.195-3.277) | 2.256 | (1.364-3.731) | 1.467 | (0.842-2.559) | 2.650 | (1.568-4.478) | 1.369 | (0.748-2.507) |
| Post-secondary education (vs. No formal education) | 13.018 | (4.770-35.529) | 6.212 | (2.153-17.925) | 3.629 | (1.224-10.761) | 1.799 | (0.569-5.688) | 3.792 | (1.649-8.723) | 1.316 | (0.514-3.366) |
Residence | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Urban (vs. Rural) | | | 1.079 | (0.733-1.587) | | | 0.898 | (0.606-1.331) | | | 1.070 | (0.674-1.699) |
Household wealth quintile | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Poor (vs. Poorest) | | | 1.334 | (0.790-2.254) | | | 1.225 | (0.736-2.038) | | | 0.746 | (0.380-1.466) |
| Medium (vs. Poorest) | | | 1.298 | (0.731-2.306) | | | 0.994 | (0.570-1.735) | | | 0.813 | (0.396-1.672) |
| Wealthy (vs. Poorest) | | | 1.259 | (0.706-2.245) | | | 1.330 | (0.751-2.356) | | | 1.142 | (0.576-2.266) |
| Wealthiest (vs. Poorest) | | | 2.346 | (1.262-4.362) | | | 2.584 | (1.289- 5.179) | | | 2.609 | (1.311-5.192) |
Age | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | 0.938 | (0.914-0.962) | | | 0.955 | (0.930-0.981) | | | 0.929 | (0.902-0.958) |
Legend: Model 1 is the unadjusted logistic regression for education on pregnancy service (antenatal care, delivery care, and postnatal care) use. Model 2 is the logistic regression for education on pregnancy service use adjusting for type of residence, wealth quintile, and age. Values of 95% confidence intervals are given in brackets. The analysis was performed on all 590 Bangladeshi mothers with disabilities surveyed in this study. |
In the multivariable logistic regression model adjusting for area of residence, wealth, and age (Table 3), the adjusted odds of using antenatal care for a disabled woman with primary education is 1.3 times (AOR = 1.27; 95% CI: 0.82, 1.97) the odds of using antenatal care for a disabled woman with no formal education. For a disabled woman with secondary and post-secondary education, their adjusted odds of using antenatal care is 2.0 times (AOR = 1.98; 95% CI: 1.20, 3.28) and 6.2 times (AOR = 6.21; 95% CI: 2.15, 17.93) higher than the odds of a non-formally educated woman, respectively (Table 3).
Qualitative findings suggest that participants’ educational attainment has a profound effect on their antenatal care service utilization. Chemon, a 40-year-old woman with visual impairment and higher educational attainment, shared that she sought medical treatment several times during her pregnancy.
I did ultrasonography many times. I had too many difficulties! I couldn’t lift my head. I felt light headed and I vomited too much. At that time, I could not walk and move around at all. I couldn’t do anything. I couldn’t do any chores at home either. As I had too much trouble, I went to the doctors even twice or thrice in a month.
(Chemon, 40-year-old woman, visual impairment, class 9 passed, married, middle class, urban area)
Chemon consulted with doctors during her pregnancy, receiving treatment at Shurjer Hashi Clinic and also meeting with another doctor to corroborate her health condition. It shows that she was more conscious about her pregnancy, actively seeking out consultation from more than one doctor to avoid complications. At the end, she faced no delivery complications such as preterm pain and anemia. According to Chemon, she belongs to an educated family, and they were all accommodating toward her pregnancy. Her educational background may have played a positive role in triggering her to be more conscious about her health conditions, leading her to seek antenatal care services.
Qualitative findings also suggest that when persons with disabilities try to acquire services from healthcare providers, those with limited formal education are often stigmatized and discriminated against. Rita, a 35-year-old woman with a physical disability and lower educational attainment, shared that she went to seek services during her pregnancy but was shamed with negligence due to her limited formal education and lack of understanding on maternal and child health (MNCH) issues.
I went to the hospital to check my baby’s condition....there was a girl who checked...asked me my pregnancy duration...I said I don’t know...She asked, ‘why did you get pregnant then? Why did you sleep with the guy (husband)?’ I was very upset then. She shouted at me, as I do not understand these pregnancy things and I am not educated like them.
(Rita, 35-year-old woman, physical disability, class 4 passed, married, poor, rural area)
Rita experienced discrimination while seeking services, due to her lack of MNCH knowledge stemming from lower educational attainment. These kinds of disrespectful attitudes by healthcare providers are not appropriate; however Rita would not have experienced such misbehavior if she had knowledge about her pregnancy duration.
It can be strongly reasoned, from the qualitative findings, that educational attainment positively contributes to improving antenatal care service utilization. Asma, a 30-year-old woman with a physical disability and holder of a master’s degree in English, shared that she sought pregnancy services even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. When the country was in lockdown due to the pandemic, healthcare services were running on a limited scale and physician availability had decreased. People were also afraid to go to the hospital, in fear of getting infected. However, even at that time, Asma sought healthcare services.
In the COVID-19 lockdown situation, hospitals are open with very few employees and most of the doctors are not available. I tried several times to get an appointment with a gynecologist. In the first hospital, we were informed that there are no doctors available. Then we tried for another doctor and luckily there we got the chance to consult with one doctor…Though I am from a lower middle class family and had to starve in this lockdown situation often, my family prioritized my health condition. I made sure my family understood the seriousness of my pregnancy condition. My education helped me here to be conscious about these issues (SRH).
(Asma, 30-year-old woman, physical disability, masters passed, married, lower-middle class, urban area)
Asma elaborated that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, her family was facing economic constraints like many others, but they prioritized her pregnancy condition and acquired professional help. According to Asma, her family’s support and her self-consciousness helped her through these difficulties, while her educational attainment also worked in favor of her SRH understanding.
Delivery care service utilization
Delivery care utilization data was collected from all 590 female survey participants who had been pregnant during their lifetime. The proportion of female participants who utilized delivery care services is 66.8% for non-formally educated mothers, 66.9% for mothers with primary education, 73.4% for mothers with secondary education, and 91.4% for mothers with post-secondary education (Figure 1). The chi-squared test between education level and delivery care use is statistically significant, resulting in P < 0.05.
Univariate logistic regression results examining the effect of education on delivery care use is presented in Table 3. The findings show that the odds of using delivery care for a disabled mother with primary education is 1.3 times (OR = 1.27; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.91) higher than the odds of using delivery care for a disabled mother with no formal education. For a disabled mother with secondary and post-secondary education, their odds of using delivery care is 2.3 times (OR = 2.26; 95% CI: 1.36, 3.73) and 3.6 times (OR = 3.63; 95% CI: 1.22, 10.76) the odds of a non-formally educated mother, respectively (Table 3).
In the multivariable logistic regression model of delivery care use adjusting for area of residence, wealth, and age (Table 3), the adjusted odds of delivery care usage for a disabled mother with primary education, secondary education, and post-secondary education is 1.0 (AOR = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.68, 1.61), 1.5 (AOR = 1.47; 95% CI: 0.84, 2.56), and 1.8 times (AOR = 1.80; 95% CI: 0.57, 5.69) the odds of delivery care usage for a disabled mother with no formal education, respectively (Table 3).
In the case of delivery care service utilization, most qualitative participants (10 out of 15) reported that they prefer home delivery care through a birth attendant. This is true for both the educated and uneducated participants. Yet educated participants, who had certain health issues like gestational diabetes, preterm pain or labor, anemia, or breech position during pregnancy, were found to seek more healthcare services than the uneducated participants who faced the same difficulties. Lack of education negatively influences persons with disabilities’ formal delivery care service utilization. Rita, a 35-year-old woman with a physical disability and lower educational attainment, shared that she suffered from several health complications during delivery, but did not go to the hospital or seek any formal healthcare services.
I got sick when I was pregnant with my last child….Everyone told me to go the hospital. During delivery, the placenta tore. I was about to die. It bled intensively; it could be measured to a bucket, even more than a bucket! I fainted. One of my neighbors went to the nearest pharmacy and called the ‘doctor brother’ (drug-seller). Then he gave me saline and my condition got better… My husband did not take me to the hospital. He is not interested to go to the hospital for this womanly (child delivery) issue. He does not allow us (family members) to go to the hospital for any other treatments also…. They (in-law’s family members) prefer ‘kabiraj’ (traditional healer) in case of any sickness.
(Rita, 35-year-old woman, physical disability, class 4 passed, married, poor, rural area)
Rita experienced a difficult delivery but declined formal healthcare services due to a lack of knowledge and financial constraints. Her husband opted for a home delivery and did not prefer any kind of medical treatment regarding Rita’s pregnancy and maternal health issues, due to his belief in ‘kabiraji chikitsa’ (traditional healing method). Also, Rita’s educational qualification is below primary education (class 4) and her husband had no formal education, which led them to fail to secure a basic livelihood. Though poverty is one of the important factors here, the couple’s lack of SRH knowledge due to lower educational attainment led them to avoid formal healthcare services. They could not afford delivery care services, but also did not desire them because of their limited education and cultural belief in the traditional healing method.
Besides educational attainment, economic status was found to be a major factor which negatively contributes to participants’ SRH service utilization. Participants with lower economic backgrounds shared that hospital services are often too costly and unaffordable for them. A 40-year-old physically disabled woman with no formal education from a rural area complained about her economic backdrop while facing delivery complications; she lost her child during delivery.
Postnatal care service utilization
Postnatal care service utilization data was collected from all 590 female survey participants who had been pregnant during their lifetime. The proportion of female participants who utilized postnatal care services is 10.6% for non-formally educated mothers, 24.2% for mothers with primary education, 27.5% for mothers with secondary education, and 29.4% for mothers with post-secondary education (Figure 1). The chi-squared test between education level and postnatal care use is statistically significant, resulting in P < 0.001.
Univariate logistic regression results examining the effect of education on postnatal care use is presented in Table 3. The model shows that the odds of using postnatal care for a disabled mother with primary education is 1.5 times higher than the odds of using postnatal care for a disabled mother with no formal education (OR = 1.48; 95% CI: 0.88, 2.48). For a disabled mother with secondary and post-secondary education, their odds of using postnatal care is 2.7 times (OR = 2.65; 95% CI: 1.57, 4.48) and 3.8 times (OR = 3.79; 95% CI: 1.65, 8.72) the odds of a non-formally educated mother, respectively (Table 3).
In the multivariable logistic regression model of postnatal care use adjusting for area of residence, wealth, and age (Table 3), the adjusted odds of postnatal care usage for a disabled mother with primary education, secondary education, and post-secondary education is 1.0 (AOR = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.60, 1.83), 1.4 (AOR = 1.37; 95% CI: 0.75, 2.51), and 1.3 times (AOR = 1.32; 95% CI: 0.51, 3.37) higher than the odds of postnatal care usage for a disabled mother with no formal education, respectively (Table 3).
Qualitative data reveals that highly educated participants seek more postnatal healthcare services. Chemon, a 40-year-old woman with visual impairment and higher educational attainment, visited healthcare facilities several times with her children after pregnancy.
I visited the nearest health complex, several times after my pregnancy. I used to go there for my children’s vaccination or getting vitamin tablets. I also went there for my after pregnancy weakness (less energetic and dizziness) treatment. My husband and family members are educated and they were very supportive in these issues.
(Chemon, 40-year-old woman, visual impairment, class 9 passed, married, middle class, urban area)
Chemon received postnatal care treatment after her delivery, and her family was very supportive of this. As Chemon belongs to an educated family, she faced fewer difficulties in accessing SRH services and received support that fulfilled her needs.
On the other hand, some lower educated study participants reported that they do not think it is important to seek postnatal care services, as they believe it will not bring any health benefits. Rita, who only passed class 4, shared she never utilized professional healthcare services for postnatal care, including child vaccination.
I never went to hospital after giving birth, even for my children’s vaccination! Many people go with their children for vaccination. But I never went. Nowadays, my daughters want to go to hospital with their children, but I do not want them to go. What is the benefit of going there? Nothing!
(Rita, 35-year-old woman, physical disability, class 4 passed, married, poor, rural area)
Rita found postnatal care services unreasonable and never sought this type of service. She even discouraged her daughters from vaccinating their children. Rita’s educational background led her to stigmatize formal SRH services. Her husband’s traditional cultural views and their poverty, as mentioned in her previous quote, adds to their reluctance in seeking these services.
Family planning service utilization
Family planning service utilization data was collected from 1,954 male and female survey participants. Among all the participants (n=2,425) who do not have any formal education, 57.8% of them used family planning methods during their lifetime (Figure 2). However, participants who exhibit more than 10 years of formal schooling have 86.2% of family planning method usage. Those with only primary or secondary education have proportions of family planning method usage at 73.7% and 67.7%, respectively. The chi-squared test between education level and family planning use is statistically significant, with P < 0.001.
Univariate logistic regression results examining the effect of education on family planning method use is presented in Table 4. The model shows that the odds of using family planning methods for a disabled individual with primary education is 2.0 times the odds of using family planning methods for a disabled individual with no formal education (OR = 2.03; 95% CI: 1.62, 2.54). For a disabled individual with secondary and post-secondary education, their odds of using family planning methods is 1.7 times (OR = 1.71; 95% CI: 1.33, 2.19) and 3.4 times (OR = 3.36; 95% CI: 1.97, 5.73) higher than the odds of a non-formally educated individual, respectively (Table 4).
Table 4
Logistic regression models for education on family planning utilization
| Family Planning | | | |
| Model 1 | | Model 2 | |
| | Odds Ratio | | Odds Ratio | |
Education | | | | | |
| Primary education (vs. No formal education) | 2.029 | (1.619-2.542) | | 2.088 | (1.652-2.639) |
| Secondary education (vs. No formal education) | 1.709 | (1.333-2.192) | | 1.719 | (1.317-2.245) |
| Post-secondary education (vs. No formal education) | 3.361 | (1.973-5.726) | | 3.523 | (2.022-6.138) |
Residence | | | | | |
| Urban (vs. Rural) | | | | 0.795 | (0.647-0.976) |
Household wealth quintile | | | | | |
| Poor (vs. Poorest) | | | | 1.369 | (1.04-1.801) |
| Medium (vs. Poorest) | | | | 1.467 | (1.093-1.969) |
| Wealthy (vs. Poorest) | | | | 1.335 | (0.985-1.809) |
| Wealthiest (vs. Poorest) | | | | 1.360 | (0.973-1.902) |
| Age | | | | 1.008 | (.999-1.018) |
Legend: Model 1 is the unadjusted logistic regression for education on family planning use. Model 2 is the logistic regression for education on family planning use adjusting for type of residence, wealth quintile, and age. Values of 95% confidence intervals are given in brackets. The analysis was performed on all 1,954 persons with disabilities (1,239 male and 715 female) in Bangladesh who responded to the survey’s family planning questions. |
In the multivariable logistic regression model adjusting for area of residence, wealth, and age (Table 4), the adjusted odds of using family planning methods for a disabled individual with primary education is 2.1 times the odds of using family planning methods for a disabled individual with no formal education (AOR = 2.09; 95% CI: 1.65, 2.64). For a disabled individual with secondary and post-secondary education, their adjusted odds of using family planning methods is 1.7 times (AOR = 1.72; 95% CI: 1.32, 2.25) and 3.5 times (AOR = 3.52; 95% CI: 2.02, 6.14) higher than the odds of a non-formally educated individual, respectively. Education level increased disabled individuals’ adjusted odds of using family planning methods more than area of residence, wealth, or age (Table 4).
Qualitative findings show that education positively contributes to family planning service utilization among the study participants. Participants’ preference to use family planning methods increased with their educational attainment. A 52-year-old educated man with visual impairment shared that he and his wife were well aware of family planning methods.
In the first 2-3 years of my marriage, I did use condom: Raja condom (brand name). After the birth of my daughter, my wife started taking birth control pills….I learned these from my friends. As I am an educated man I got chances to learn from radio, television, roadside advertisements, leaflets, etc.
(Rahim, 52-year-old man, visual impairment, H.S.C. passed, married, lower middle class, rural area)
This couple used different family planning methods during their conjugal life. According to Rahim, his education helped him to learn about family planning methods from different media sources.
A closer look at the qualitative findings suggests that participants who have comparatively lower educational attainment were less aware of family planning methods, and hence suffer the most from SRH related issues. Banu, a 35-year-old woman with a physical disability and no formal education, shared that she was only 12 when she married. She got pregnant from her first intercourse, and she did not know about family planning methods then.
I got married at the age of 12. After my first menstruation I got married and started living with my husband. After that my menstruation got stopped…. When I did not get my period for 4-5 months, then it was noticed. My mother asked me if I’m getting my period. I said that I had not been getting my period for 3-4 months. Then my mother told my grandmother about my pregnancy….I was not clever enough about that like today’s school going girls. I was unaware about it.
(Banu, 35-year-old woman, physical disability, no formal education, married, poor, rural area)
Banu was completely unaware of any family planning methods and experienced an unintentional pregnancy. She learned of her pregnancy when her family members noticed her physical appearance or menstrual irregularity. Though marriage at an early age was one of the reasons for her early pregnancy, she mentioned that she lacked awareness of her pregnancy due to lower educational attainment.
Banu also commented on her husband’s ignorance toward family planning methods.
What will he think about it (family planning)! Where’s his educational background for it!
(Banu, 35-year-old woman, physical disability, no formal education, married, poor, rural area)
She was doubtful about her husband’s knowledge regarding family planning methods, as his education did not suffice on this topic. Banu values education and realized that her husband’s lack of education is mainly responsible for his ignorance.
Chang, a 35-year-old woman with a physical disability and no formal education, shared that she did not have the chance to educate herself on family planning, as her household was too poor to provide her with educational support. She belongs to an indigenous community in a remote hilly area. Chang was married at the age of 12 and had no idea about family planning methods; she experienced miscarriage during her first pregnancy.
I knew that I was pregnant. But I couldn’t tell it to the doctor, as I was shy! I took the medicine (skin care) as I didn’t know that medicine is prohibited. Then the baby was gone… I don’t know anything about these things women take nowadays (family planning methods)….
(Chang, 35-year-old woman, physical disability, no formal education, divorced, poor, rural area)
Chang clearly experienced a miscarriage due to her knowledge gap on family planning; she took a skin care medication which resulted in her miscarriage. Getting married at a young age and being an indigenous woman from a remote hilly area affected her educational attainment and communication skills, which affected her SRH service use. She failed to obtain family planning or pregnancy knowledge and services, which lead to her miscarriage.
Qualitative study participants sometimes harbored misconceptions from community members regarding family planning methods, spread by those with less education. Banu shared that she was taking injections as a family planning method for many years. Her neighbors tried to influence her not to use injections, as they believed it may harm her.
They (neighbors) said, ‘Why do you use injections? You’ll be crippled. You already have disability, you’ll be further disabled. What will you do then? Your blood will turn to water. Now you can at least walk. If you keep using injections, you wouldn’t even be able to walk. You’ll get anemia.’
(Banu, 35-year-old woman, physical disability, no formal education, married, poor, rural area)
Lack of knowledge on family planning methods, such as in the case of Banu’s neighbors, can affect individuals’ utilization of family planning methods. Different conceptions or misconceptions regarding family planning methods in one’s community or society is a determinant of individual opinions surrounding family planning methods. Misconceptions are deeply connected with an individual’s SRH understanding and overall educational attainment. Banu’s neighbors tried to confuse her with their limited knowledge to discourage her use of family planning methods. One may easily be influenced by these misconceptions and derailed from bettering their SRH if their educational background is not strong enough to push back against it.